AIR TERROR PLOT

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Aug 10 2006, 10:39 AM) [snapback]300839[/snapback]</div>

I guess we need to leave the Prius at home when flying. According the the Heathrow video on the CNN story, they are also prohibiting the electronic key fobs.

 

I left NY Laquardia last night at 5:30 to head home. I find out this morning, how lucky I was to leave NY on Wednesday instead of Thursday. After two days in the city, I don't know how people put up with the noise.

Glad to be home, sorry for everybody elses agony.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfschultz @ Aug 10 2006, 12:20 PM) [snapback]300859[/snapback]</div>

Just put the fob in your checked luggage.

 

I wonder if it will get to the point where you simply can't carry anything on board, all luggage goes on another plane...

 

So.... yeah... don't take a long flight if you have an infant with you... because baby formula will not be allowed.. also don't plan on flying if you're a Diabetic, because Insulin is out as well...

A flat out bar againt liquids could make things complicated very quickly, I hope they'll do something to accomodate people.

 

This only applies in the UK, so far.

This is presently in effect in the UK, wallets are OK if in a plastic bag, travel docs OK too (duh).

Baby formula is allowed as is breast milk (didn't say if it needed to be in original container :lol: ). Perscription medications (properly labeled of course) and non perscription medications essiential for life such as insulin are permitted as well. This is from the TSA as of 11:30 this morning CDT.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Aug 10 2006, 11:39 AM) [snapback]300839[/snapback]</div>

I did not realize it stopped.

From my perspective it has been ongoing for decades - kind of coinciding with the birth of Palestinian(s).
And soon to be accelerated with a nuclear armed Iran.

We are learning how it feels to be an Israeli - except we do not YET face the same level of the potential of random violence happening to us - YET.

Seems to be only one religion doing this -

Seems they are not quitting -

Seems they attack all (Bali, England, Spain, US - a target for over a decade - , Israel, Egypt, etc, etc)

Seems we better wake up - or follow the Liberal lead - cut and run, hide, talk, understand why, admit defeat, blame ourselves, etc -- or start building lots of wood boxes (if your lucky enough to find anything to bury).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 10 2006, 07:04 PM) [snapback]300905[/snapback]</div>

Come on, dbermanmd, you can do it! Scare the cr@p out of yourself!!
You sound like an anxious man who is lost in a changing world. Relax, those frightening angry muslims are not next to your bed yet... But nevertheless regularly check what's underneath, just in case. And make sure your nuke is under your pillow, fully armored.

The chance that you get killed by a mad muslim on a plane is sooo much smaller than the chance that you lose your life in a car accident while driving to that plane. To scare you even more: there is a higher chance that you get killed by a meteorite falling from the sky. Now that's a scary thought, isn't it? Of course, I'm pretty sure that even that is linked to the Palestinians somehow.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Aug 10 2006, 11:07 AM) [snapback]300993[/snapback]</div>

Actually Muslim extremists, fascist , Islamists (whatever they're called) kill tens of thousands of people a year. Granted most of them are other muslims, so we don't care as much, but this group is bloodthirsty and is willing to strike out with whatever is available.

I'm not scared I'm just waiting until they do something that actually causes the world to say that the extremists, and those who support them, no longer have a right to exists. (yes that would mean the deaths of probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of people and alot of those would not be directly involved, but I figure that whatever the wake event is, it will warrant such a response)

It will happen because appeasement is not possible.

 

Get the facts!

American Airlines
http://www.aa.com/apps/netSAAver/ViewPromo...romotionContent

Continental Airlines
http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/conte...90B22FA430D560C

United Airlines
http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,51802,00.html

British Airways
http://www.britishairways.com/travel/flightops/public/en_gb

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Aug 10 2006, 11:31 AM) [snapback]300867[/snapback]</div>

As I was listening to the report on the car radio, I must admit a cartoon came to mind. I'm sure some cartoonist has already drawn it.

Here is my idea.

A long line of naked people are lined up to board a plane. In the front is a man with a newspaper held strategically. The caption is the attendant telling the man. "I'm sorry sir, but newspapers are no longer allowed."

 

One report I heard on the radio, apparently refering to flights in or from the U.K., said that medicines would be allowed only if necessary to sustain life, and even then only the amount needed during the flight. All other medicine would have to be in checked luggage.

Considering that my luggage gets mis-directed about once in every 4 to 6 flights, I don't think I'd travel if I could not carry all my medicine with me. And other people have medicines that are more critical than mine.

I've also missed connections, and been told I could not have my checked baggage on the forced overnight. Now imagine a diabetic being told he can only carry with him sufficient insulin for the flight. And think about lost luggage, missed connections, weather-related delays.

Seems al Queda doesn't need to actually blow up anything to disrupt air travel. All they have to do is let the cops find out they are "planning" something.

On the bright side, I saw a headline that the reduced flight schedules have caused a drop in fuel prices, presumably due to reduced demand.

 

According to both the NBC and ABC national newscasts this evening (aren't DVRs wonderful?), the Brits have been aware of this plot for months. They have been in consultation with the Americans over this development for days if not weeks.

I must say that I find the timing and manner of the announcement and the chaotic implementation of the new security measures rather curious, to say the least.

I may be a cynic, but I sure do smell an element of politics in the way that this drama is unfolding.

 

I don't plan on flying anytime soon. No, not from fear, but from the stupid, over-reactive security measures. I just choose not to get all stressed out. I guess I will bump my 10 hr drive rule to a 2 day drive rule.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 10 2006, 08:48 PM) [snapback]301246[/snapback]</div>

I mentioned that very same thing to my wife tonight while watching the news. They could have us strip naked and strip searched (full body cavity search) then board the plane.

The best thing out of this would be to BAN ALL CARRY ON LUGGAGE! Once and for all. It's distruptive, annoying, rude, and slows boarding and disembarking. Check everything except for purses and small backpacks. Easy. Simple.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Aug 10 2006, 09:53 PM) [snapback]301278[/snapback]</div>

Yesssssss...interesting how it's less than 90 days till the mid-term elections......How many Terror Alert level changes did we have before the 2004 elections?? Tons. How many after the elections? Yea.....not too many.

The Republicans are at it again I'm afraid.

Fear, Smear and Queer. They did the Queer already a few months back. Now it's Fear. Next up......their favorite of all (yep, that's you Swiftboat Veterans for Everything) SMEAR!!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 11 2006, 03:15 AM) [snapback]301232[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I was only talking about the chance to be killed by a muslim extremist on a plane.

Me thinks you suffer from a severe case of xenofobia. Me recommends you to visit a few muslim countries. For starters, I would recommend perhaps Morroco, Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia, .... Or go to the Maldives for a scuba diving vacation. You will encounter lots of ordinary people that don't really differ from your friendly neighbor at home.

Yes, muslim terrorism is a disease. But your proposed cure (nukes, I suppose) is worse than the disease. It wouldn't help anyway, because the level of worldwide hate that you would create in this way would be unprecedented. And you just can't kill everybody. After your action, then you would really have a stinking problem.

The key to fighting terrorism on a short term is good old-fashioned intelligence. Lots of intelligence: spies, infiltration, the whole nine yards. Then add this to the targetted elimination of their staff, based on the information you collected. We all can learn a lot from the Mossad in this respect. Believe me: for a terrorist, a bombing campain that kills 100 people and 2 terrorists is almost a gift. A single bomb that just kills 2 terrorist chiefs while they are sleeping in their beds is much more scary and effective. Deploying 100.000 soldiers in a country like Iraq does nothing to fight terrorism.

On a longer term, you fight terrorism by cutting its supplies. This means not only financial and weapons, but also humans. Offer ordinary people in those countries a better future. This takes time of course. Many people look at it as a "softie" approach. It's not, if it is concerted with hard, but targetted action.

 

Personally I'm not willing to live in fear of the miniscule possibility that I might get injured or killed in a terrorist attack. If that happens, so be it.

I'm not going to have my lifestyle dicated to me by threats from cowardly killers and knee-jerk responses from political hacks.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 10 2006, 10:04 AM) [snapback]300905[/snapback]</div>

If you think that's the "Liberal Lead", then you are a fool.

Dave

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Aug 10 2006, 08:06 PM) [snapback]301286[/snapback]</div>

It's pretty spooky when I agree with Schmika, but on this we agree: Ever since 9/11 the stupid, over-reactive security measures have done nothing but make travel more of a nuisance.

Sure, we need security. But the measures taken (such as prohibiting nail clippers after 9/11, or chapstick now -- while allowing baby formula!!!) have had nothing to do with security and everything to do with promoting and heightening fear for political purposes.

On the other hand, I do agree with limiting carry-on luggage to a minimum. We'd get on and off the plane in half the time without the oversized carry-on suitcases. (But the airlines should be given the "incentive" of hefty fines for lost luggage to induce them to institute the kind of package tracking that UPS and Fed Ex use. Say, a thousand-dollar fine for every suitcase that does not arrive on the same plane as the passenger, plus a thousand dollars for every day it does not arrive, up to $100,000 maximum. They can eliminate lost luggage. They just need an "incentive" to install proper tracking.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Aug 11 2006, 10:30 AM) [snapback]301462[/snapback]</div>

promoting fear for political gain??? fine you fly democratic airline without any security so they dont promote fear for political gain and I will fly El Al that promotes security not for political fear but for passenger safety.

you worry about lost luggage - I worry about landing in the same amount of pieces I took off in.

lost i looked, shipping packages that are not "attached" to humans traveling at the same time who might miss flights, have flights delayed or transferred, or altered in some way and have other external forces on them and then having all the inhabitants of one plane scattering in dozens of different directions with their luggage is much different from a plane load of packages all sharing the same destination.

and, your incentive should be in the form of increased profit instead of punishment if you want it to work - easier to do and more effective. would you be willing to pay extra to guarantee the delivery of your luggage?